[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: upstream tarball repackaging from bz2 to gz

On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 10:10 -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> The upstream tarball for a package I maintain is in .tar.bz2 format.
> I've been downloading it and recompressing it into .tar.gz format.
> This seems like a very common situation.

Yes very common.

> 1.  Should I still follow the section on "best practices for
> .orig.tar.gz files" in the Developer's Reference, and include a
> README.Debian-source file

Technically it's a repackaged .orig.tar.gz so yes.  On the other hand
many upstream websites don't list MD5 checksums so a download would be
needed to verify that the .orig.tar.gz is identical to the
upstream .tar.gz anyway.  And if you're downloading anyway, then using
md5sum or using diff -r to see that things are identical costs about the
same effort.  I think that the best purpose of README.Debian-source is
to document things that are not obvious.  In any case, it helps to just
follow the interpretation of your sponsor and the ftpmaster. :)

> and a get-orig-source target in
> debian/rules?

Not mandatory, I think.

> 2.  Should I automate the bunzip2 & gzip in the debian/watch file?

I think that having a debian/watch file that makes the latest upstream
(stable) version listed on the debian webpages is already very good.

> (I don't think I can justify asking upstream to publish a more
> wasteful version of the same bits on his website just to suit Debian.)

That is of course very true.  Maybe the long term solution is that
Debian supports the .bz2 format.

Hope this helps,

Bart Martens

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: